The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complains that London Council’s Taxicard scheme has provided a poor service. She says her mother was caused distress and has missed important appointments because of this. We found fault by the authority. It has agreed a suitable remedy.
The complaint
Miss X complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs X that the London Taxicard scheme, which provides subsidised travel in taxis for people with significant mobility and visual impairments is providing a poor service. She says there are delays and unsuitable vehicles are frequently allocated. She complains this has caused Mrs X distress and frustration, and it is unacceptable and unfair for vulnerable people with disabilities.
Miss X also complains the contractor failed to respond to her complaint about its driver on 13 May 2022. She would like the authority to take disciplinary action.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated matters regarding the bookings Miss X made from July 2022.
I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint about a booking in May 2022. This is because the complaint is late.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a body in jurisdiction has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
I do not consider there are good reasons to investigate this late complaint. It is unlikely there are sufficient records available and we cannot achieve the remedy Miss X wants.
How I considered this complaint
I have discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the information she provided. I have made enquiries of the authority and considered the comments and documents it provided. Miss X and the authority had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
A contractor, ComCab London, provides the Taxicard scheme on behalf of London Councils. The scheme offers subsidised travel in licensed taxis (black cabs) and private hire vehicles (minicabs). It is a subsidised service for London residents with serious mobility impairments or who are seriously sight impaired.
The scheme allocates users a trip allocation, or a certain number of trips per year for each user.
The information booklet “Welcome to the London Taxicard Scheme” explains that: the scheme “provides trips for social purposes, for example going shopping, visiting friends and family and going out to events.”
Bookings are dependent on the number of vehicles available at any given time and the booking is subject to availability. At times the demand for vehicle may exceed supply.
Taxicard is not suitable for appointments that are time critical as the service cannot be guaranteed. It is not recommended for hospital appointments.
London Councils has a service level agreement (SLA) with ComCab In advance bookings: 95% of vehicles are required to arrive within 15 minutes of the booked time.
As soon as possible bookings: 95% of vehicle should arrive within 30 minutes after the booked time.
What happened Due to her mobility problems Mrs X requires a black cab with a low step and a swivel seat. Miss X says that ComCab apologised for failing to provide a suitable vehicle in June 2022. It said it would note her account.
On 5 July 2022 Miss X booked a cab in advance the day before an early hospital appointment. ComCab’s records do not show the type of vehicle allocated, and it shows it was cancelled by the contractor 33 mins after the time it was required. However, Miss X says ComCab initially allocated an unsuitable vehicle. It then cancelled it and rebooked a suitable vehicle. Mrs X arrived late at hospital.
The record does not show an unsuitable vehicle was allocated, but on the balance of probability I consider that the contractor initially allocated the wrong type of cab. This caused Mrs X frustration and delay. It appears ComCab’s records are unclear or incomplete.
On 8 July 2022 Miss X booked an “as soon as possible” booking to take Mrs X home from hospital. But ComCab’s records show that a PHV was allocated in error rather than a black cab. Miss X said it was cancelled as it was unsuitable. It appears that no other replacement black cab was then booked.
On 20 February 2023 Miss X booked as an “as soon as possible” booking to take Mrs X to hospital (accident and emergency). But despite Miss X reminding ComCab on booking that Mrs X required a black cab, ComCab allocated a PHV. Miss X cancelled this because the vehicle was not suitable. ComCab booked a further suitable vehicle. This arrived 9 minutes after the original required time. Therefore, it arrived within the contractor’s SLA.
Miss X says this caused them distress because Mrs X was in severe pain. In its response to Miss X’s complaint London Councils apologised regarding the incorrect vehicle being allocated. It says it was due to human error. It should have called to check if this was acceptable. London Councils says it has reminded despatch agents they should always check if a PHV is suitable before allocating. Miss X says ComCab’s records did not provide full details regarding the booking to show it had allocated and sent the wrong vehicle in the first place.
On 21 April 2023 Miss X called in advance and booked a black taxi for Mrs X and herself to attend a religious festival. She specified the type of vehicle required. However, on the day ComCab advised it had allocated a PHV which was not suitable for Mrs X.
Miss X contacted ComCab and it booked a suitable black cab. It then advised the driver had changed and a different vehicle was allocated. Miss X cancelled this booking because the type of vehicle was unsuitable. This meant that Mrs X had waited more than 1 hour and 20 minutes and ultimately she was unable to attend the festival.
In its response to Miss X’s complaint regarding this booking London Councils advised that the error in the type of vehicle allocated was due to human error. It said ComCab agents had struggled to find a suitable cab and that it had offered the booking to all drivers, leading to the PHV being allocated. It apologised for the distress caused.
London Councils explained the second vehicle it allocated was in fact a black cab type of vehicle, and it would have been suitable. Miss X says the despatch agents had an opportunity to advise her the vehicle was suitable but failed to do so. She also said London Councils failed to apologise for this poor communication.
In its general comments responding Miss X’s complaints, London Councils has explained its contractor has had difficulty recruiting drivers since the Covid pandemic. ComCab has used alternative contractors to help fulfil its service level agreements. This shortage has sometimes led to suitable vehicles being unavailable.
London Councils has also commented that its welcome booklet for service users explains that the service is not guaranteed and is not suitable for time sensitive appointments, such as hospital appointments.
London Councils says that it regrets the occasions when an unsuitable vehicle was allocated and it apologised for this. It says it has noted Mrs X’s account and reminded despatch agents that they should contact Mrs X to confirm the booking is suitable. It has also arranged for a senior manager to monitor the service Miss X makes at the time of placing the booking, to ensure the service is provided where possible. This appears to be working well.
London Councils has referred to its service level agreement (SLA) with ComCab. This says that 95% of advance bookings should arrive within 15 minutes of the required time. The records of the period it considered showed that ComCab met this target. For “as soon as possible bookings” the target is for 95% of booking to arrive within 30 minutes of the booking. This target was not quite met, being just under 95%.
Analysis I consider that on four occasions between July 2022 - June 2023 ComCab allocated an unsuitable vehicle. This was despite ComCab advising it had noted Mrs X’s account in June 2022 that she required a black cab with low step and swivel seat. This is fault and caused distress and inconvenience.
However, I note that one of these bookings in February was an as soon as possible booking, and while the initial allocated vehicle was unsuitable the replacement allocation arrived within 9 minutes of the required time. In addition, I note that this was a time sensitive booking to take Mrs X to accident and emergency. But as the scheme booklet advises, it is not a service for time sensitive or emergency journeys.
There appears to be a lack of effective record keeping by ComCab because while it stated it had noted Mrs X’s requirements on her account again each time she raised a complaint, the contractor failed to take this into account. It also failed to advise her on that the vehicle allocated on 21 April 2023 as its revised cab allocation was in fact suitable. This is fault and I consider it caused Mrs X inconvenience and distress.
I consider there is fault by London Councils because the service it provided to Mrs X was poor and below its service level agreement. Of the 32 bookings that I have seen, 14 arrived late outside the SLA. While most of the delays were under 15 minutes, some were up to 84 minutes. It appears that Mrs X received a service that was not in accordance with the standards set by London Councils.
The Authority’s response London Councils and ComCab commented on an earlier draft of this decision that the process for flagging accounts with specific vehicle types was for London Councils to update the Taxicard account in order to notify ComCab. But it did not do this until 3 August 2022. Therefore, ComCab did not accept that it was its error as it did not have the information earlier.
ComCab apologised if it had advised Miss X in June 2022 that it would note Mrs X’s account. However, a note would have no effect on the allocation system until London Councils updated the vehicle type on the Taxicard account.
ComCab did not accept that it allocated the wrong vehicle type on 8 July 2022. It said that it had allocated a black cab.
London Councils accepted that there was a flaw in its process and it should ask the user for their preferred type of vehicle at the time of application for a Taxicard account.
I welcome the Authority’s recognition that there was a flaw in its process which it will address. I note ComCab’s comments regarding late notification about vehicle type by the authority. However, I consider that there is sufficient evidence that agents gave Miss X incorrect or misleading information. Agents should have advised her to contact London Councils in order for the correct vehicle type to be recorded.
The information regarding the incorrect vehicle allocation on 8 July 2022 was provided by London Councils in its complaint response. Miss X advised the wrong type of vehicle was allocated. I have not changed my view that four bookings in the period were unsuitable vehicles, despite Miss X’s attempts to advise the contactor in advance. This caused Mrs X and Miss X inconvenience and distress.
Agreed action
The Authority has agreed within one month of my decision to: apologise for its failure to provide an effective service and for its poor communication and record keeping.
pay Mrs X £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor level of service she received.
Revise its process to note users’ accounts at the time of initial application with their specific vehicle requirements. It has already updated its application form to reflect this.
update its welcome booklet and information about the scheme on its website to refer to the Ombudsman as the final stage of the complaint procedure.
The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
There was fault by the Authority. It has agreed an appropriate remedy. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman